What Gun Control Really Means

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Over 170,000,000 people have been murdered by their own governments. It can happen here, and it will
if we let it. TPTB have come out and told us that they plan to eliminate over 90% of the world's population. See the Georgia Guide Stones if you don't
believe it.

"They are not killing us here in the UK, or Australia, or Canada" gun grabbers from other countries love to say. It's true, NOW, Why? Because if they
started rounding you people up before they get our weapons, we would never voluntarily relinquish our weapons as you were foolish enough to do. That's
why.

Registration always leads to confiscation, sometimes limited confiscation at first. Background checks are just a backdoor to registration. They are
not letting that information get away.

There can be no compromise. It must stop here, it cannot be allowed to go further.

George Orwell painted a grim picture of the future of humanity. "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
face—forever." If we give them total monopoly over force of arms, this future is guaranteed.

We had a national gun registry here which was just scrapped a few years back because it was too expensive and it didnt make anything safer. Most long
gun owners in Canada are fairly responsible. Mind you, we have to take pretty intensive safety courses to obtain one, and you arent allowed to
purchase them if your criminal record is a mile long.

THe only good gun control measure i agree would be effective in the US is regulations on storing them. Two fatal incidents in the last week due to
kids getting their hands on them?? Thats unacceptable. We have laws for locking them up because of a similar incident in canada back in the early 90s.
If anything, keep em out of the hands of a four year old.

THe only good gun control measure i agree would be effective in the US is regulations on storing them. Two fatal incidents in the last week due to
kids getting their hands on them?? Thats unacceptable. We have laws for locking them up because of a similar incident in canada back in the early 90s.
If anything, keep em out of the hands of a four year old.

How would you enforce this law without a) knowing who has guns(registration), and b)
inspections(which should violate the 4th amendment?

My dad and uncles had weapons and none of my siblings or cousins ever shot ourselves. Education of children by parents about gun safety is the best
way to prevent such tragedies as you speak of. Common sense about gun storage when dealing with very young children would also go a long way.

Basically, if there is an incident such as where the four year old went inside and got the 22 and came back outside with it, the owner would be
charged for not following the law on proper storage. Judging by the article in CNN
here, the cops dont know who they should be charging and
with what. In Canada, that would be the owner being charged.

That or when they are stolen by criminals. If your home was broken into, and they werent locked up in a gun safe, you are responsible for that.

It makes a lot of sense and we have almost zero accidental cases of gun injury outside of hunting and recreation. Plus guns arent stolen from legit
owners very often.

He who has the guns rules....which fits Mao Tse Tung's statement that "all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." In other words...."gun
control" means that the state (Gov) has a monopoly on force and that the nexus of power resides in the government itself and not the people per
se.

Alright, so being pro-gun only goes with being into the NWO conspiracy. I get it now. Let's pretend that, like it has in the other Nations, this whole
gun registry will help more than harm. Does it still seem like a bad idea to you. Just for one second, put aside your own personal fears of TPTB and
ask yourself this.

well the Armenians would disagree with you.....so would the Aztec's if Cortez had not shot them with guns(and diseases)and taken all of their gold
and land ,a good deal of Jews from the holocaust would also disagree(especially the ones of the Warsaw ghetto uprising) and hey im sure if the native
Americans had access to firearms at the same rate the white men were they might still own this country(after having shot the Pilgrims with them) the
list goes on and is endless it also kept the Swiss from getting invaded by the Nazis during ww2 so you can try to deny the historical precedents that
exist for all to see but that wont change the fact that governments have used gun control and the disarming of their own people to horrible result

The reality of "gun control" seems to be background checks and nothing more. Heck, we already have background checks in the Great Commonwealth of
PA and they're fairly quick. Walk in, fill out a form, pay $3, pay for the rifle and/or handgun and walk out.

What's the problem with including background checks at gun shows?

As for internet sales, the firearm has to be shipped to an FFL who will do a background check on you prior to giving you the firearm.

I don't see this bill as anything more than a "feel good" measure and don't understand why the NRA isn't okay with it. Is the NRA protesting it
so the "gun grabbers" will be okay with the bill's passage (i.e. If the NRA doesn't like it, it must be good)?

From what I've read, it doesn't include anything about private sales or gifting to family members.

How is registration going to force people to have their guns confiscated exactly?

Have you even thought this through?

Suppose everyone registers their guns and the government says ok now you have to turn them in. Do you really think people are going to?

Of course not.

This means that the government will have to go door to door to get them. Now considering that there are anywhere between 4 million and 10 million
households who have a firearm in it just how many years do you think its going to take them to get 200 million plus guns out of society?

10, 20, 30 years maybe?

There are far too many guns in American society for them to confiscate and the Supreme Court would never allow the government to say that people have
to turn them all in. Not unless they change the second amendment.

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings
Alright, so being pro-gun only goes with being into the NWO conspiracy. I get it now. Let's pretend that, like it has in the other Nations, this
whole gun registry will help more than harm. Does it still seem like a bad idea to you. Just for one second, put aside your own personal fears of TPTB
and ask yourself this.

edit on 10/4/2013 by TheSparrowSings because: (no reason given)

It is a definite harm. Was Mao part of
the NWO? Stalin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin?
How about the native Americans at Wounded Knee? or the blacks up until the 1960s? They were also disarmed by law, right here in the USA. Does gun
control help or hurt? if someone in that movie theater in Colorado had been armed, maybe so many others might not have died. You can't count on the
police to protect you, the supreme court has already ruled that they are not required to protect individual citizens. Even if the police wanted to
protect you, often when seconds count they are minutes away. This doesn't even consider the times when law enforcement itself is the tool of
repression.

Citizens should be armed and able to provide for their own safety and security.

The reality of "gun control" seems to be background checks and nothing more. Heck, we already have background checks in the Great Commonwealth of
PA and they're fairly quick. Walk in, fill out a form, pay $3, pay for the rifle and/or handgun and walk out.

What's the problem with including background checks at gun shows?

As for internet sales, the firearm has to be shipped to an FFL who will do a background check on you prior to giving you the firearm.

I don't see this bill as anything more than a "feel good" measure and don't understand why the NRA isn't okay with it. Is the NRA protesting it
so the "gun grabbers" will be okay with the bill's passage (i.e. If the NRA doesn't like it, it must be good)?

From what I've read, it doesn't include anything about private sales or gifting to family members.

Because background checks are just
another means of registration. Registration always leads to confiscation.

Originally posted by Hopechest
How is registration going to force people to have their guns confiscated exactly?

Great question, ask the Jews of Nazi Germany, or the
Armenians of early 20th century Turkey, or the Tutsi tribe, or the people of Cambodia. The registration is so the government knows who is armed. That
makes it much easier to confiscate the weapons than it would be if they did not know who was armed.

Originally posted by Hopechest
How is registration going to force people to have their guns confiscated exactly?

Great question, ask the Jews of Nazi Germany, or the
Armenians of early 20th century Turkey, or the Tutsi tribe, or the people of Cambodia. The registration is so the government knows who is armed. That
makes it much easier to confiscate the weapons than it would be if they did not know who was armed.

They had nowhere near the massive amounts of guns that we do. Heck, we have more guns in circulation than all those countries had population wise.

Combined.

If you can't see the difference you aren't looking. And your not answering the problem of how they actually confiscate 200 million plus guns. How many
people and how long will it take them. That alone makes it unrealistic.

The city of Chicago has the toughest anti-gun laws in the country of the USA. Who has guns, then? The criminals. So many guns, in fact, that the
police don't bother going in there and trying to stop the mayhem.
They just pick up the bodies of the innocents and not-so-innocent.

Common sense just isn't so common for the anti-gun people. I'm glad you people don't have guns.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.